THE XXIII ASSISTANT CITY CIVIL COURT AT CHENNAI Present : Tmt. B. Soundharya, M.A., M.L., XXIII Assistant Judge, Thursday, the 21st day of August, 2025 I A.No. 17/2021 in O.S.No. 8122/2021 CNR.No.TNCH01 – 0 32653 – 2021 Mr. Edappadi K.Palanisamy, Joint Co-Ordinator,

IN THE XXIII ASSISTANT CITY CIVIL COURT AT CHENNAI
Present : Tmt. B. Soundharya, M.A., M.L.,
XXIII Assistant Judge,
Thursday, the 21st day of August, 2025
I A.No. 17/2021 in
O.S.No. 8122/2021
CNR.No.TNCH01 – 0 32653 – 2021
Mr. Edappadi K.Palanisamy,
Joint Co-Ordinator,
No.226, Avvai Shanmugam Salai,
Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014.
…Petitioner/3rd Defendant
//Vs//
1. Mr.S.Surya Moorthi,
Avilipatti (PO),
Sanarpatti (Via),
Dindigul District,
Tamil Nadu. … 1st Respondent/plaintiff
2. General Secretary/Authorised Person,
All India Anna Dravida Munnetra
Kazhagam,
No.226, Avvai Shanmugam Salai, Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014.
3. Mr.O.Paneer Selvam,
Co Ordinator, AIADMK,
No.226, Avvai Shanmugam Salai, Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014. … Respondents 2 and 3/
defendants 1 and 2
This petition came up on 29.07.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of M/s. K.Gowtham Kumar, E.Balamurugan and N.S.Amogh Simha, counsels for the petitioner/3rd defendant and the 1st Respondent/plaintiff M/s. S.Surya Moorthi, appeared for party in person and on perusal of the records and hearing arguments of the both sides and having stood over for consideration of this court till date, this court delivered the following; ORDE R
This petition has been filed under Order VII Rule 11 r/w Section 151 of CPC, to reject the Plaint.
2. The facts in brief as stated in the affidavit are as follows :
2.1. The petitioner submitted that the 1st respondent herein has filed the present original suit for the following reliefs;-
“a) To pass decree and judgment granting mandatory injunction directing the respondents to conduct elections to the post of General Secretary as per Rule 20(2) of the Bye laws and direct the newly appointed General Secretary to convene a General Council Meeting and thereafter direct the General Secretary to conduct intra party elections as per Rule 30(1) and the elected members of the General Council and the General Secretary convened as per Rule 19(7) shall elect the Presidium Chairman and for a permanent injunction restraining the 2nd and 3rd defendants or the lapsed General Council from appointing any persons to any posts including the post of the Presidium Chairman; b) To award cost of the suit; and
c) To pass any such further or other order or orders as this Honble Court may deem think fit and proper in the circumstance of the case and thus render justice.”
2.2. The plaint ought to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) as devoid of any cause of action and under Order VII Rule 11(d) as barred by law. The plaint is liable to be rejected on the following broad grounds;
(a) Plaint is devoid of cause of action;
(b) Plaint is hit by res sub judice under Section 10;
(c) The 1st respondent has no locus standi to file the suit;
(d) The 1st respondent has filed multiple proceedings and has clearly abused theprocess of law.
2.3. At the outset, the present suit is a classic case of how the legal processes are abused by the litigants by filing vexatious and frivolous litigation and wasting the precious time of the court and the same ought to be rejected on that ground alone. The plaint in the above suit does not disclose any cause of action for the plaintiff to file the same and as such the same is liable to be rejected. The 1st respondent/Plaintiff in the above suit has approached this Court with unclean hands and had suppressed various vital details. Apart from the Plaint not disclosing any cause of action, the suit is also vexatious and has been filed with a hidden agenda. The Plaint is liable to be rejected on this ground alone.
2.4. The 1st respondent has filed the present Original Suit withoutdisclosing in the plaint that an earlier Original Suit in OS No.3694/2021 filed by him before this court is pending. There is not even a whisper as to what is the prayer in the said earlier suit. He has filed the present suit as though it is a fresh and independent suit. In OS No.3694/2021, the 1st respondent had sought for a “permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 3 herein and or their men and or agents whomsoever from carrying out the internal party activities of the AIADMK party in accordance with the new party guidelines/rules/byelaws created recently by the defendants 2 and 3 without due process of law;”. While the original suit with an all encompassing prayer the said prayer is pending before this court, the 1st respondent could not have filed the present suit. The prayer in the present suit is a sub-set of the earlier suit that is pending and therefore barred by res sub judice under section 10 of CPC. It is a clear attempt on the part of the 1st respondent to abuse the process of law.
2.5. Further stated that AIADMK is a recognized political party in the State of Tamil Nadu and Union Territory of Puducherry registered with Election Commission of India under Section 29A of Representation of Peoples Act, 1951. AIADMK is an unregistered Body of Individuals with a set of Rules & Regulations, that is registered with the Election Commission of India, binding their functioning. The Membership of AIADMK is governed by its Rules and Regulations and the persons who are not members of AIADMK cannot question the functioning of the party. Rule-5 of the bye laws talks about Membership of the party. The entire Rule-5 is extracted below for the sake of convenience.
“MEMBERSHIP
i. Only those Males or Females who are 18 years of age and above and who accept the aims and objectives, rules and regulations of the Party and the decisions of the Party as final and pledge that they will not resort to Court action on such matters are alone eligible to become the Members of the Party.
ii. Those who are found to have been directly or indirectly connected or associated with any caste or communal or other Political organization will forfeit their Membership of the AIADMK.
iii. a. Only those who hold their Membership Cards, issued by Headquarters of the Party will alone be recognized as Members. Only from the date of issue of Membership Card, a Member will become eligible to vote.
b. Any one who fulfills the condition of eligibility as laid down by the Party constitution can become a Member. They should send in their applications in the form to the Headquarters office through the secretary of the Party Unit concerned and they must obtain their Membership Cards in token of their admission. They can also enroll themselves as Members in the presence of the Coordinator and Joint Coordinator who alone are empowered to admit a person to Membership.
c. A person desirous of becoming a member of a particular Party Unit of the organization shall be a resident or should have business interest within the area.
d. Not less than Twenty Five persons should be enrolled in the prescribed Form-F issued by the Headquarters Office which shall be forwarded within a month to Headquarters. The Membership Cards issued by the Headquarters should be delivered to the members admitted within a week from the date of receipt of Cards. iv. a. A person is eligible to become a Member only in one party Unit.
b. A member can transfer his membership from one party unit to another for valid reasons. The transfer of membership can be effected with the consent of both the Secretaries of Party Units concerned by payment of transfer fee to Headquarters. However, the decision of Coordinator and Joint Coordinator in this matter is final.
v. The rules for enrolling the new Members as laid down by the Headquarters from time to time should be followed.
vi. Every Member shall pay a membership fee of Rs. 10/- only for every five years. This fee should be remitted along with the application for Membership.
vii. Members shall have not right to resort to Court Proceeding regarding party matters. If any member of the Party resorts to any Court proceedings against the party Coordinators’ and Joint Coordinators’ decision, he / she shall ceased to be a Primary Member of the Party.
The decision of the General Council shall be final with regard to party matters and only those who abide by this condition are eligible to admission for Membership. All those who have become Members of the KAZHAGAM are bound by the decision of the General Council” (emphasis suppled)
As can be seen in Rule 5 (iii) (a), only persons who possess Membership card of the party are alone members of the party. Further, it is also clear that under Rule 5 (vi), the Membership Fee has to be paid once in every 5 years. Apart from this, the Members who want to become Members of the party have to take a pledge that they will not resort to Court action against the party and that they shall abide by the decisions taken by the General Council, which shall be final.
2.6. The 1st respondent does not even have locus standi to file the present suit. He is not only an outsider to the AIADMK party, the 1st respondent herein is a member of another political party by the name MGR Makkal Kachi and has suppressed the same before this court in every proceeding and pleading filed by him. The 1st respondent has filed the original suit and other IAs under the guise of a member of the AIADMK who is concerned about the internal party affairs, is completely false and is filled with blatant lies. He is not even a member of the party since 2018; his membership has expired a s early as in 2018. In addition to the said fact, what is more shocking is the fact that the 1st respondent had contested the recently concluded Assembly Elections 2021 from the constituency of Edappadi against the petitioner herein, as a candidate of one political party by the name “MGR Makkal Kachi”. The same is evident from the fact that the official website of the Election Commission of India has details of the 1st respondent, who contested in the elections under the name of MGR Makkal Kachi political party. Having contested an election from a different political party, the 1st respondent has not even whispered about any of the said facts in any of his original suits, petitions or interlocutory applications before this court. This conduct of the 1st respondent is nothing but a clear, outrageous attempt to play fraud upon the court and mislead the courts under the guise of being an “Innocent party-in-person”. The 1st respondent is guilty of committing perjury, contemp of court and fraud.
2.7. Further submitted that it has always been the stand of the petitionerand respondents 2 and 3 that the 1st respondent herein is not even a member of the AIDMK party and thus has no locus stand. As mentioned above, only recently it came to the knowledge of the petitioner that the 1st respondent is not only an outsider to the AIADMK party, but a member of another political party that contested against the petitioner herein in the Assembly Election 2021. This fact has been conveniently suppressed by the petitioner in each of his suit, petition, affidavits and counter affidavits. In this regard, the petitioner herein reserves their rights to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against the 1st respondent under the criminal laws. The 1st respondent to guilty of seeking publicity in the guise of being an innocent party worker. The 1st respondent has abused the process of law multiple times and does not deserve any sympathy whatsoever and thus has to be taken to task for perjury and contempt, as he has approached this court with unclean hands multiple times. He is guilty of abusing the magnanimity shown by this court towards party in persons. These facts were suppressed by the 1st respondent and are clear proof of the mala fide intention of the petitioner.
2.8. It is submitted that the vexatious nature of the plaint and its frivolity is evident from the allegations in the plaint itself. It is submitted that the allegations in the plaint are as if the 1st respondent/plaintiff has been dormant since 2017. It is submitted that there were disputes between the two factions in AIADMK and the said matter has reached Election Commission in Dispute No.2/2017 as a dispute under Para-15 of Symbols Order, 1968. The Election Commission had held that the group presided over by the Co-ordinator and Joint Coordinator are the original AIADMK. This Order came to be passed on 23.11.2017. The said Order was challenged by the members who were not successful before the Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) No. 10725, 10728 and 10733 of 2017 including the 5th defendant. The said Writ Petitions were dismissed by the Delhi High Court by Order dated 28.02.2019. The appeals filed against the said order before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3205- 3206 of 2019 were also dismissed on 26.03.2019. A Review Application against the said Order by the 5th defendant in R.P. No. 1404 of 2019 of the Supreme Court was also dismissed on 23.04.2020. Therefore, the very tenor of the Plaint questioning the leadership of the Coordinator and Joint Coordinator on the ground that they have not been elected is completely baseless and does not gives rise to any cause of action for the 1st respondent.
2.9. Further submitted that the hidden agenda with which the plaint inquestion stands revealed by the following:
(a) The very description of the parties by the 1st respondent/plaintiff itself shows the contemptuous nature of the 1st respondent/plaintiff to the Orders of the highest Court of this Country and also the hidden agenda behind this suit. It is submitted that the plaintiff is clearly acting under the instructions of persons who want to disturb and create hardship to the AIADMK party. The very fact that the 1st respondent/Plaintiff as chosen to name the defendants by qualifying them with posts which was prior to 12.09.2017 shows that the 1st respondent/plaintiff has the hidden agenda of causing disruption to the party. In fact the 1st respondent/plaintiff who seems to be such a court bird ought to know that the Election Commission of India, the only body with which the AIADMK party is registered with has acknowledged the amendments to the Bye-laws and also the party has contested Assembly by-elections, parliamentary elections, local body elections as well as state assembly elections under these by-laws and amended position. The 1st respondent/plaintiff is a disrupter and is one with a clear agenda to putforth the objectives of persons who do not want to come in the fore front. The malicious intent with which the present suit has been filed would itself render the plaint to be rejected.
(b) It is submitted state that the 1st respondent/Plaintiff in the above suit even as per para 6 of the Plaint has admittedly not renewed his Membership after 2013 and as on date the Plaintiff is not a member of the AIADMK party and as on date the 1st respondent/plaintiff is not a member of the AIADMK party and has become a memner of MGR Makkal Kachi. As a person who is not a member of AIADMK, the 1st respondent/plaintiff has no locus whatsoever to seek for any relief the conduct of intra-party activities.
2.10. Apart from the above, the Resolutions passed at the General Council meeting on 12.09.2017 were recognized by the Election Commission even. according to the 1st respondent/plaintiff. After the said meeting, there have been subsequent General Council meetings held as well. The Party has specifically sought time from Election Commission for conduct of intra-party election from time to time and the same had been granted by the Election Commission. Since the ECI had granted time till December 2021 to conduct the elections, the AIADMK party announced the elections to the post of the Coordinator and Joint
Coordinator on 02.12.2021 and the nominations were received on 03.12.2021 and 04.12.2021. Since there were no candidates opposing the petitioner and the 3rd respondent, they were appointed as Joint Co-ordinator and Co-ordinator respectively. Further submitted that by taking into account even the subsequent events, the courts have ample power to reject the plaint and prevent any abuse of process by frivolous litigants such as the 1st respondent. Further submitted that by reading the cause of action paragraph, it becomes evident that although the 1st respondent has traced all the events from 1972 till date, he has not whispered as to how a legal injury has been caused to him, who is an outsider to the AIADMK party. No where has the 1st respondent/plaintiff mentioned about any legal injury caused to him, which he is sought to remedy in the suit. Further all the statements made in the cause of action are general statements made by him and the same in no way shows the locus standi of the plaintiff to maintain the suit. Hence, this petition.
3. The brief facts as stated in the Counter filed by the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff are as follows :
The respondent has elaborately stated the counter which is the verbatim of the plaint. The detailed plaint has been dealt in discussions below. The respondent stated that he is having locus standi to file the application and hence prayed to dismiss the petition.
4. The point for consideration is whether the petition to reject the plaint shall be allowed or not?
5. No witness was examined on either side and no document was marked on either side.
6. Point:
Heard both sides. The learned counsel of the petitioner and the party in person made detailed written submissions with relevant authorities which has been discussed in detail in the following paragraphs.
The point for consideration in this application is that whether the plaint is liable to be rejected on the ground that there is no cause of action?
6.2. Before going into the merits of above contention a bare perusal of Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, will be looked into for better appreciation.
“Order 7: Plaint:
Rule 11: Rejection of plaint :–The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:
(2.a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;
(2.b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(2.c) where the relief claimed is properly valued but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamppaper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(2.d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;
(2.e) where it is not filed in duplicate;
(2.f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9:
Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction
of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp- papers shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp papers, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.”
6.3. As per the above provision of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaint can be rejected only under the circumstances stated therein and not otherwise. The learned counsel of the 3rd defendant has filed written submission by stating that it is stated by the petitioner/defendant that the plaintiff has no right to suit and has no locus standi to maintain the suit. The plaint itself is vexatious and subsequent events rendered in the above proceedings become the suit infructuous. There is no cause of action pleaded by the plaintiff in the plaint and plaint is nothing but an abuse of process of law and the same ought to be dismissed in limine.the plaintiff is not a member of the AIADMK political party and as per Rule 5 of the byelaws a person can be a member AIADMK only. If he holds a valid membership card and he has to renewal of membership once in five years. On the date of the plaint, the plaintiff is not a renewed member of the party and he is not having locus standi to file the suit. The plaintiff in the plaint has failed to mention anything regarding the connected proceedings.
6.4. The learned counsel of the petitioner along with his arguments submitted the following citation which could through light on the issue whether the plaint in OS No.8122/2021 is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of
CPC?
The learned counsel of the petitioner is relied upon T. Arivanandan versus
T.V.Satyapal reported in 1977 (4) SCC 461.
The Honorable Supreme Court observed that when the reading of plaint indicates that it is manifestly vexatious or meritless, the court should exercise its power under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. In a case where an illusory cause of action has been created by clever drafting, the Honorable Supreme Court expressed its views so strongly by directing the courts to nip the plaint in the bud at the first hearing even by exercising the power under Order 10 of CPC. The question is whether the real cause of action has been set up in the plaint or something purely illusory has been elucidated only after seeing the averments of the plaint. At this juncture, it is necessary to look into the averments of the plaint.
6.5. The learned counsel of the 3rd defendant also relied upon Shipping Corporation of India Limited Vs. Machado Brothers and Others (2004) 11 SCC 168 in which it has been stated that ” Continuation of the suit which has become infructuous by disappearance of the cause of action would amount to when to an abuse of the process of the court and interest of justice recovers that such suit should be disposed of as having become infructuous. ” The learned counsel of the 3rd defendant also relied upon JM Biswas Vs NK Bhattacharjee and Others (2002) 4 SCC 68, in which it has been stated that ” From the narration of facts and the contentions raised on behalf of the parties it is clear that the dispute raised in the case has lost its relevant due to passage of time and subsequent events which have taken place during the pendency of the litigations “, ” continuing this litigation will be like flogging a dead horse such litigations, irrespective of the results, will neither benefits the parties to the litigation nor will serve the interest of the union. Hence it become infructuous”.
6.6. The learned counsel of the petitioner/3rd defendant has also stated that in 2022 there was again a change of the party based on the resolutions which were passed at General Council of AIADMK on 11.07.2022 and the subsequent election which were conducted on 28.03.2023. The convening of General Council on 11.07.2022 was subject matter of challenge in civil suits before the
Hon’ble Madras High Court wherein the subject of interim reliefs travelled to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide an order dated 23.02.2023 confirmed the order of the division bench of Madras High Court which had dismissed the applications seeking for injunction against the convening of meeting on 11.07.2022. The said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which is already part of the record is also filed along with these written submissions. There was again a challenge to the resolutions passed on 11.07.2022 which were also prima facie held to be valid by the learned single judge on 28.03.2023 which was confirmed by the order of division bench of the Hon’ble Madras High Court 25.08.2023. The SLP filed against the said order was dismissed on 19.01.2024.
The plaintiff has not even disclosed the fact that he had contested in the 2021 assembly elections on the ticket of another political party. This suppression is vital in as much as a person belonging to another political party cannot make any claims regarding AIADMK. In his reply to this allegation the plaintiff has not denied the fact he contested the 2021 elections on behalf of another political party. On the other hand, he has manufactured an ID card for the petitioner/defendant herein as if he were a member of DMK. The said manufactured ID card does not give any right to sue to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff not being a member of the AIADMK party cannot be concerned with the affairs of the party and the present suit at his instance cannot be maintained.
The cause of action pleaded in the plaint which has been extracted above clearly shows that the plaintiff himself has not made any claims that he continues to be a member of the party.
The subsequent legal proceedings and the subsequent development of the
party have rendered the prayer completely infructuous. In fact, defendant no.1 who was the former coordinator of the party had been expelled from the primary membership of the party on 11.07.2022. His removal has been prima facie upheld by the Hon’ble Madras High Court which has not been interfered by Supreme Court.
6.7. The learned counsel of the petitioner/3rd defendant has relied upon the Judgments of Hon’ble High Court and Supreme Court in the similar subject matter.
i) Mr.K.C.Palanisamy Vs. All India Anna Dravida Munnetra KazhagamRep by its Co Ordinator and Joint Co Ordinator and Others, CS No.352 of 2021 dated 19.09.2022.
ii) All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam(Amma) Rep by its GeneralSecretary and Another Vs. All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (Puratchi Thalaivi Amma) and Others, AS No.337, 338 and 339 of 2022 dated
05.12.2022.
iii) K.Palaniswamy Vs. M.Shanmugam and Others CA No.1392 of 2023
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated February 23, 2022.
6.8. The learned counsel of the 3rd defendant stated that the above similar cases are the subsequent events that happened in the political party which has been suppressed by the plaintiff herein.
7. The main contention of the petitioner/3rd defendant that the plaint itself devoid of merits and there is no cause of action set up in the plaint.
8. At this juncture, it is necessary to repeat to the averments of the plaint.
8.2. The plaintiff has filed a plaint with vast pleadings inculcated Rules of AIADMK party and he has elucidated the order of election commission in dispute case number 2 of 2017 and also the order in WP No.13372/2021. The plaintiff stated that he is the primary member of All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam from 2008. In paragraph 7 of the plaint, the plaintiff has elaborated Article 19 of Constitution of India and stated that as per the fundamental right envisaged under Article 19 of the Constitution of India is having a right to questioned the arbitrary activities of AIADMK political party. In paragraph 9 and 10 of the plaint, the plaintiff has stated the history of the AIADMK party and also extracted the speech of erstwhile Chief Minister Dr.M.G.Ramachandran. Upto the plaint paragraph number 12 he has stated the events happened in AIADMK political party such as death of erstwhile chief Minister Dr.M.G.Ramachandran on 24.12.1987, double faction of the political party during that period and the events happened during 1991, 2001, 2011 and 2016. Since those facts stated only the history it is not necessary to reiterate all the contents here.
8.3. In the paragraph 13, the plaintiff has mentioned about the Rule No.45 amended in the year 2007, in which the General Secretary is fully authorized to relax or make alteration in any of the aforesaid rules and regulations of the party. In paragraph No. 17 to 33, the plaintiff has stated the rule of AIADMK party drafted by erstwhile Chief Minister Dr.M.G.Ramachandran.
RULE 20; GENERAL SECRETARY
(1) The General Secretary of the party will be responsible for the entareadministration of the party.
(2) The General Secretary shall be elected by the Primary members of all theparty units of Tamilnadu and the members of the party in others, state like pondicherry, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala and Andaman Islands.
(3) The General Secretary can nominate from among the primary members of theparty one or more Deputy General Secretaries and Treasurer and as many Headquarters secretaries as are needed for administrative convenience.
(4) The General secretary will constitute the Executive Committee of the centralOrganisation consisting of the General Secretary, Deputy General Secretaries, Chairman, Treasure, Head Quarters secretaries, District Secretaries and the nominated members.
(5) The members of the Central Executive Committee the Deputy GeneralSecretaries,Treasurer and the Headquarters Secretaries nominated by the General Secretary will hold the office during the tenure of the office of the General Secretary.
If For any reason the post of General Secretary becomes vacant In between, the office bearers who were nominated by the previous General Secretary will hold office and continue to function till the -inw General Secretary is elected and assumes office.
(VI )The General secretary of the party shall have the powers and responsibilities to convene the Executive and the General Council Meetings, to implement policies and programmes of the Party as decided by the General and Executive Councils, to conduct elections and by-elections for Party organisations, to examine the accounts of all the party units through the Audit Committee, to manage by self and through the Treasurer the income and expenditure of the Party organisations at all levels, to manage the Party Office, movable and immovable properties of the Party, to represent the party in the legal proceeding that may arise in respect of the legal properties and take necessary Legal steps on behalf of the party to protect them.
The General Secretary will preside over the Party conferences take all kinds of disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the Party rules against the Party units and its office bearers who violate the Party rules, regulations or act against the Party interest, party discipline, policies and programmes, including immediate suspension of any Party unit or office bearer. The
General Secretary shall be the supreme authority to take a final decision on the disciplinary proceedings recommended by the party units and shall have over all powers to take all steps to promote and preserve the Party policies and programmes and to develop and protect the Party organizations.
(VII) The General Secretary are empowered to take such actions as he may deem fit on political events, policies and important programmes of urgent nature which cannot brook delay and await the meeting of either Executive Committee or General Council of the Party. Such decisions and actions have to be ratified by the General Council in its next meeting. However, it is open to the General Secretary to obtain the views of the General Council Members on such urgent matters by post when the Council is not in session.
(XI) If the General Secretary-so desires he can nominate a Deputy Secretaryexclsivey to look after the party administration work of TamilNadu.
(XII) The Authorization forms addressed to the Election officers for the allonmentof the Two Leaves symbol to the candidates contensting on behalf of the AIADMK shall be Signed only by the General Secretary.
(XIII) The General Secretary is vasted with the right to nominate Joint Secretariesor Deputy Secretaries in case of need, to Branch units,Union, Town Township and District units and other state units, beside selected functionaries. Moreover the General Secretary also is vasted with the powers to nominate women in the posts to compensate and give due representation to women if in any of the party units at any level. Women do not elected represent one third of the posts.
RULE: 42 TENURE If The General Secretary feels that there are genuine reasons a according to changing situations, the General Secretary is vested with the power to exempt from the above mentioned Rules and regulations.
The General Secretary shall be elected by the Primary members of all the party units of Tamilnadu and the members of the party in others, state like pondicherry, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala and Andaman Islands.
RULE 43; AMENDMENTS The General Council will have powers to frame, amend or delate any of the Rules of the Party Consitution. But the Rule that the General Secretary should be elected only by all’ the Primary members of the Party cannot be changed or amended since it forms the basic structure of the Party.
8.4. It is stated by the plaintiff that as per Rule 43 the basic structure of theAIADMK party is that the General Secretary should be elected only by all the primary members of the party cannot be changed or amended since it founds the basic structure of the party. The paragraph No.34 has stated that General Secretary Selvi J.Jayalalitha died on 05.12.2016 and V.K.Sasikala has appointed as Interim General Secretary by General Council on 29.12.2016. Due to incarceration of V.K.Sasikala the party has been divided into two factions and the 2nd and 3rd defendants without having any authority has cancelled the post of General Secretary and included the post co-ordinator and joint co-ordinator which is against the rules under Section 20(ii) and 43. Further the plaintiff has relied upon dispute case No.2 of 2017 between E.Madusudhanan and Others vs. V.K.Sasikala and Others. In paragraph No.45 again the plaintiff has reiterate the
Rule No.30(i), (ii), (iii) and (xii). The plaintiff has extract of the order in WP No.13372/2020 in which the Hon’ble High Court has stated that “if aggrieved by the intra party affairs of his political party, the petitioner-s only remedy is to approach a civil court. In such circumstances, this court exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot entertain the relief sought for by the petitioner.”
8.5. Further the plaintiff has stated so many facts by Quoting Rule 23 aboutthe rules of the Chairman and the prayer of the plaint is that
“a) To pass decree and judgment granting mandatory injunction directing the respondents to conduct elections to the post of General Secretary as per Rule 20(2) of the Bye laws and direct the newly appointed General Secretary to convene a General Council Meeting and thereafter direct the General Secretary to conduct intra party elections as per Rule 30(1) and the elected members of the General Council and the General Secretary convened as per Rule 19(7) shall elect the Presidium Chairman and for a permanent injunction restraining the 2nd and 3rd defendants or the lapsed General Council from appointing any persons to any posts including the post of the Presidium Chairman; b) To award cost of the suit; and
c) To pass any such further or other order or orders as this Honble Court may deem think fit and proper in the circumstance of the case and thus render justice.”
8.6. While determining whether the plaint has to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, the entire plaint has to be read as a whole to determine whether the plaint discloses cause of action and whether the court has to look into the plaint as per the Registrar of Hon’ble High Court T.Arivanandam Vs. T.V.Satyapal and another (1977) 4 SCC 467.
8.7. It is also well settled that while considering the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the Court has to only go by the various averments made in the plaint to find out as to whether it discloses the cause of action or not, and not to judge the issue based on the rival contentions made by the defendant in his pleadings. In other words, the disclosure of cause of action by the plaintiff in the plaint, has to be found out from the point of view of the plaintiff as set out in the plaint, and not from the point of view of the defendant as projected by him in his defence.
8.8. Whether a plaint discloses the cause of action as required under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, is a question which is a distinct and different one from the question as to whether the plaintiff can succeed in the suit based on such cause of action. It is needless to state that only the latter question involves the consideration of other allied questions with regard to the maintainability of the suit as well as the “locus-standi” of the plaintiff to file the suit. The provision made under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint, specifically reads that the plaint shall be rejected on one of the grounds, namely where it does not disclose the “cause of action”. In other words, the above said provision nowhere contemplates the rejection of plaint if the suit is not maintainable, or on the ground that the plaintiff is not having locus-standi to file the same .
8.9. Keeping the above statutory position in mind, let me consider as to whether the Petitioner / 3rd defendant has made out a case for rejection of the plaint.
The respondent / plaintiff has filed a detailed counter for the petition for rejection of plaint and also detailed written submissions. The counter and written submissions are the mere verbatim of the plaint. The respondent / plaintiff has placed his reliance upon the decision of our Hon’ble High Court in 1999(3) CTC 229 S.Thirunavukarasu and another Vs. J.Jayalalitha and another, W.P.No.8476 of 2019 dated 21-03-2019, V K Sasikala vs The Election Commission Of India & Ors dated 28-02-2019.
9. The above suit has been filed by the plaintiff against 1 to 3 defendants for the above said reliefs and another suit in OS No.3694/2021 has been filed by the plaintiff against the Madhusudhanan and Others for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 3 herein and or their men and or agents whomsoever from carrying out the internal party activities of the AIADMK Party in accordance with the new Party guidelines/rules/byelaws created recently by the defendants 2 and 3 without due process of law. As rightly argued by the petitioner / 3rd defendant, the plaintiff failed to disclose O.S.No,3694 / 2021 in this plaint. The cause of action mentioned in the plaint is as follows;
“வழக்கிற்கான காரணங்கள்: 17.10.1972, அ.இ.அ.தி.மு.க.-வைவ நிறுவனர் MGR த ாடங்கினார்; 1972-ல் கட்சிக்கு மு ன்மு லாக விதிமுவை கள் (Bylaw) உருவாக்கப்பட்டது; 1972-ல் கட்சி திண்டுக்கல் நாடாளுமன் தே ர் லில் தவற்றி; 1977 வவைர மிழக சட்டமன் தே ர் லில் தவற்றி தபற்று MGR மு லவைமச்சரானார்; 1987 வவைர த ாடர்ந்து தவற்றி தபற்று மு லவைமச்சராக MGR இருந் ார்; 1987-ல் உடல் நலக்குவை வு காரணமாக மவை ந் ார்; 1987-ல் கட்சியில் ஏற்பட்ட பிளவு காரணமாக கட்சிவை7யும், சின்னத்வை யும் ECI முடக்கி7து; 1991-ல் மீண்டும் அதிமுக தவற்றி தபற்று தசல்வி.த<.த<7லலி ா மு லவைமச்சரானார்; 11.03.1996-ல் இந்தி7 தே ர் ல் ஆவைண7ம் உட்கட்சி தே ர் ல் நடத்து ல் த ாடர்பாக தவளியிட்ட தீர்ப்பு; 05.02.2007 தபாதுச் தச7லாளரால் திருத் ம் தசய்7ப்பட்ட வைபலா; 2008 வாதி அஇஅதிமுகவில் உறுப்பினராக தேசரு ல்; 2008 தபாதுச் தச7லாளர் அதிகாரத்தின்படி உட்கட்சி தே ர் ல் நவைடதபறு ல்; 2013-ல் வாதியும் அட்வைடவை7 புதுப்பித் ார்; 29.08.2014 மு ல் 22.11.2015 வவைர தபாதுச் தச7லாளர் வைலவைமயில் உட்கட்சி தே ர் ல் நடத்து ல்; 07.01.2016 உட்கட்சி தே ர் ல் மூலம் நிர்வாகிகள் தே ர்வு தசய்7ப்படு ல்; 2016 சட்டமன் தே ர் லில் அஇஅதிமுக தவற்றி தபற்று தசல்வி.த<.த<7லலி ா மீண்டும் மு லவைமச்சராக ஆனார். 05.12.2016-ல் உடல்நலக்குவை வால் காலமானார்; 29.12.2016 இவைடக்கால தபாதுச் தச7லாளராக சசிகலா நடரா<ன் நி7மனம்; 22.03.2017-ல் கட்சியில் ஏற்பட்ட குளருபடிகள் காரணமாக இரண்டாவது முவை 7ாக கட்சிவை7யும் சின்னத்வை யும் ECI முடக்கு ல்; 12.09.2017 கட்சியின் விதி 43-ன்படி அதிகாரதேம இல்லா தபாதுக்குழு கூடி தபாதுச் தச7லாளர் பவிவை7 நீக்குல்; மற்றும் கட்சியின் விதிமுவை கவைள மீறி கட்சியின் கட்டவைமப்பிதேலதே7 இல்லா ஒருங்கிவைணப்பாளர், இவைண ஒருங்கிவைணப்பாளர் ப விகவைள தபாதுக்குழு உருவாக்கு ல்; 23.11.2017-ல் கட்சி, சின்னம் த ாடர்பான வழக்கில் ECI தீர்ப்பு வழங்கு ல்; 22.02.2018 - 2 மற்றும் 3 எதிர்மனு ாரர்கள் உட்கட்ச தே ர் ல் நடத்துவது த ாடர்பாக ECI க்கு கடி ம் அனுப்பு ல்; 16.12.2019 அன்று புதி7 ாக வைபலா திருத் ம் தசய்7ப்படு ல்; 06.12.2019 - மு ல் உட்கட்சி தே ர் தேல நடத் ாமல் நிர்வாகிகள் த ாடர்ந்து 08.10.2021 வவைர நி7மனம் தசய்7ப்படு ல்; 18.01.2021 அன்று WP No.13372/2021 ன் உட்கட்சி விவகாரங்களின் வைலயீடு தசய்7 ECI-க்கு அதிகாரம் இல்வைல என தசன்வைன உ7ர் நீதிமன் தீர்ப்பு; 09.04.2021-ல் உட்கட்சி தே ர் ல் நடத்து ல் குறித்து WP Noo.2426/2021-ல் தசன்வைன உ7ர்நீதிமன் வைலவைம நீதிபதி அவர்களின் தீர்ப்பு; இவைவ அவைனத்தும் நீதிமன் த்தின் வரம்பிற்குட்பட்டது." 9.2. As per the cause of action stated by the plaint the plaintiff has questioning the meeting dated 12.09.2017 and stated that the defendants 2 and 3 has violated the procedure of the party byelaws and illegally conducted meeting on 12.09.2017 and 2 and 3 defendants is not having any power to cancel the post of General Secretary and adding the post of Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator which is diluted the basic structure of the AIADMK Party constitution. The learned counsel of the petitioner/3rd defendant has relied upon AS No.337, 338 and 339 of 2022 and CRP No.2347 of 2022 dated on 05.12.2023 , On careful perusal of the above said order the above Appeals has been filed by the petitioner to set aside the decreetal order dated 11-04-2022 passed in I.A.No. 8 / 2021, in O.S.No.1413 / 2021, I.A.No. 10 /2021 in O.S.No.1413 / 2021, I.ANo. 9 / 2021 in O.S.No.1413 / 2021 before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras. On careful perusal of the order of Hon’ble High Court, the petitioner / plaintiff filed the suit for a decree of declaration in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants Nos.1 to 6 that the alleged Meeting dated 12-09-2017 convened by defendants and their supporters under the guise of All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (Amma, Puratchi Thalaivi Amma) representing themselves as the representatives of the plaintiff No.1 Party is illegal and void; (v) Pass a decree of declaration in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants that all resolutions passed adopted by the defendants and their supporters in the alleged Meeting dated 1209-2017 and all consequential actions taken by the defendants and their supporters acting upon the same are illegal, inoperative and void; (relevant prayers regarding the meeting dated 12-09-2017 extracted )in which the Hon’ble High Court stated that “As we have already pointed out the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it will be open to the Court to put an end to a infructuous litigation at any stage of the proceeding. Courts have repeatedly held that under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 are not exhaustive and rejection can be on grounds outside Order VII Rule 11 of the Codeo of Civil Procedure also. As pointed out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in T.Arivandandam v. T.V.Satyapal and another, referred to supra, a totally vexatious or meritless or infructuous litigation shall not be retained on file and it has to be thrown out. In fact, in Shipping Corporation of India Ltd v. Machado Brothers and Others, referred to supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that if a suit becomes infructuous due to certain subsequent events is nothing wrong in the suit being thrown out We may also usefully refer to the judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Aupama Gupta and Ors. v. Kuldeep Singh and Ors. reportedin, 2014 SCC Online Del 7417, wherein the Delhi High Court had examined the issue relating to rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure very exhaustively and had observed that the rejection of plaint can be made on the ground that the litigation has become infructuous. If we are to examine the case on hand in the light of the precedents that have been cited at the bar, we will have to necessarily conclude that the suit as it stands today cannot be retained on the file as the suit espouses the right of a splinter group, that was created by an interim order of the Election Commission, which has ceased to be in existence upon the final orders having been passed. We are therefore, unable to fault the Trial Court for having rejected the plaint." 9.3. As per the above citation, the cause of action relating to 12.09.2017 has come to an end. The main prayer of the plaintiff is that mandatory injunction directing the respondents to conduct elections to the post of General Secretary as per Rule No.20(2) of the Bye laws and direct the newly appointed General Secretary to convene a General Council Meeting and thereafter direct the General Secretary to conduct intra party elections as per Rule 30(1) and the elected members of the General Council and the General Secretary convened as per Rule 19(7) shall elect the Presidium Chairman and for a permanent injunction restraining the 2nd and 3rd defendants or the lapsed General Council from appointing any persons to any posts including the post of the Presidium Chairman. 9.4. The learned counsel of the petitioner/3rd defendant relied upon CS No.352 of 2021 Mr.K.C.Palanisamy versus 1. The All India Anna Dravid Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) Rep. By its Co-ordinator & Joint Co-ordinator, Mr.O.Paneerselvam & Mr.Edapadi K.Palanisamy, 226, Avvai Shanmugam Salai, Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014 and in the above said case one of the prayer is permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner whatsoever conducting the election for the office of the Coordinator and Joint Coordinator of the 1 st defendant party as contemplated under the Election Notification dated 02.12.2021 slated to be held on 07.12.2021 or any other dated and to appoint a retired High Court Judge as Election Officer to conduct the election for the Coordinator and Joint Coordinator as contemplated under Election Notice dated 02.12.2021 issued by the 1 st defendant by declaring the electoral list and issuing a fresh election notification by providing 21 clear days as per the bye-law of the AIADMK party and for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to permit the plaintiff to participate in the election and for cost of the suit. On careful perusal of records, the Hon’ble High Court has stated that “In view of these facts, I hold that the suit filed by the plaintiff cannot be maintained with respect to any of the reliefs sought, whether to declare the election notice dated 02.12.2021 as unenforceable or to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants from conducting any election or to appoint the retired High Court Judge as Election Officer, to conduct the election or to direct the 1 st defendant to re-admit the plaintiff as a member again. Whether he is a member or not a member of the 1 st defendant is of no interest to the Court. 23. I further hold it would be extremely imprudent on my part and harsh to on any retired High Court Judge if he/she is appointed to over look the nature of procedures to be adopted in the 1st defendant The prayers do not survive the scrutiny of this Court. The plaint does not survive and the same is struck off the registers of the Court. 25. In Arivandandam Vs. T.V.Satyapal and Anr., reported in 1977 4 SCC 467, theHon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to comment the role of judicial officers when faced with a vexatious suit filed by a plaintiff who has no cause of action as follows: “The learned Munsif must remember that if on a meaningful-not formalreading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, be should exercise his power under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled.” 26. In the result, 1. the Suit in C.S.No.352 of 2021 is rejected and struck offthe registers of the Court. 10. This Court is of considerable view that the above case is relevant case law to reject the plaint. This plaint has been filed by the plaintiff who has been stated as a member of the AIADMK party. From the bare perusal of the plaint he is stated that he is member from 2008 but no pleadings in the plaint has proved that he is continued as a member of the AIADMK party. The main contention of the petitioner / 3rd defendant is that the plaintiff is not a member of the AIADMK party and he has contested under different ticket. This Court is of considerable view that the membership of the party and the allegations thereon cannot be decided by plain reading of the plaint. 10.2. Admittedly the issue herein arises after the resolutions passed by 1 and 2 defendants dated 12-09-2017. There are various litigations by the alleged Political party and the stand taken on 12-09-2017 has been challenged in the various litigations. The petitioner / 3rd defendant relied upon Original Side Appeal Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023 and CMP. Nos.7421, 7423, 7424, 7426, 7427, 7429, 7519, 7521, 7536, 7547, 7556, 7557, 7558 and 7563 of 2023 and 11641 of 2023 --- O.S.A. No. 68 of 2023 O. Panneerselvam Co-ordinator/Treasurer, AIADMK having office at No.226 Avvai Shanmugam Salai Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014 .. Appellant Versus 1. All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam rep. by its Coordinator and Joint Co-ordinator having office at No.226, Avvai Shanmugam Salai Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014 2. The General Council All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam rep. by its Presidium Chairman having office at No.226, Avvai Shanmugam Salai Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014 1/140 OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023 3. Edapadi. K. Palaniswami Joint Co-ordinator/Party Head Quarter's Secretary AIADMK having office at No.226, Avvai Shanmugam Salai Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014 .. Respondents 10.3. In the above said, the Hon’ble High Court has narrated the chronology of cases filed by the alleged political party in respect of resolutions passed on 12-09-2017 and subsequent events. In brevity, it has been extracted hereunder; The undisputed facts which have a direct bearing on the present appeals are that for the first time on 12.09.2017, the post of general secretary of the AIADMK party came to be abolished, and the posts of Coordinator and Joint Coordinator were created, and Mr. O.Paneerselvam (OPS) was appointed as the Coordinator and Mr. Edapadi K. Palaniswami (EPS) was appointed as the Joint Coordinator. Amendments also came to be made to the Byelaws governing the party accordingly. The posts of Coordinator and Joint Coordinator were to be elected by the General Council as per the Byelaws of the Party. On 01.12.2021, in the meeting of the Executive Council in which the rules pertaining to the election of the Coordinator and Joint Coordinator were amended and it was specifically mentioned that the same would be placed before the next convened General Council meeting, where the said amendments were to be approved/ratified as the executive Council did not have the powers to amend the bye-laws, which powers exclusively vest with the General Council. After the election of OPS as Coordinator and EPS as Joint co-ordinator, there was a joint announcement on 02.06.2022 convening the meeting of the General Council on 23.06.2022. However, there was a change in the events, when during the consultation meeting on 14.06.2022 the District secretaries discussed the need for a single leadership. The request of the appellant in O.A. No. 251 of 2023 seeking for postponement of the meeting which was scheduled on 23.06.2022 was not acceded to by the 3rd respondent, and accordingly, a suit in CS No. 111 of 2022 was filed by one Mr. Shanmugam, a supporter of the appellants, along with O.A. Nos. 327 and 328 of 2022 seeking interim injunction restraining the third defendant from convening the meeting on 23.06.2022. It is pertinent to mention at this juncture that the relief of interim injunction with respect to the meeting, was refused by the learned Judge. It is also a matter of record that the Division Bench had passed an interim order in CMP No. 9962 of 2022 in OSA No. 160 of 2022 granting an order of interim injunction against taking any decision on any of the Resolutions apart from the alleged 23 draft Resolutions approved by the Co-ordinator. However, on 23.06.2022 all the 23 Resolutions that were placed before the General Council were rejected, and that, it was announced that the next General Council meeting would be held on 11.07.2022. It is also a matter of record that in the said meeting on 23.06.2022, the first appellant herein was also present. In the meanwhile, by order dated 06.07.2022 the Hon’ble Supreme Court stayed the operation of the order dated 23.06.2022 passed by the Division Bench. Thereafter, on the very same day, the suits have been filed by the first appellant O.Paneerselvam and one Vairamuthu, accompanied with interim applications seeking stay of the meeting dated 11.07.2022 after the order of the Supreme Court. The learned Judge dismissed the applications in OA Nos. 368, 370 and 379 of 2022 seeking for interim injunction against the meeting. As a result, the General Council meeting went on, on 11.07.2022, in which, 2460 members attended the meeting and the dual leadership that was approved earlier, viz. the posts of Coordinator and Joint coordinator, came to be abolished and the single leadership under general secretaryship was once again introduced and the post of interim general secretary was created. The third respondent was elected as the interim general secretary and election to the post of general secretary was to be conducted within four months and officers were to be appointed as per the Resolutions passed therein. Also importantly, the appellants were removed from their respective posts and primary membership of the party and new office bearers were appointed in their places. It is also seen that the amendments introduced by the General Council were intimated to the Election Commission of India by the 3rd respondent as the interim general secretary under section 29A of the Representation of People’s Act 1951. When the order of the learned Judge passed in the applications stated supra, came to be challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and by order dated 29.07.2022, the Supreme Court had remanded the matter back to the High Court to reconsider the issue OSA Nos. 68 to 78 of 2023 without being influenced by the orders of the Supreme Court either on 06/07/2022 or by the present order. Thereafter, on 17.08.2022 the said original application Nos.368, 370 and 379 of 2022 were allowed and status quo ante as on 23.06.2022 was ordered. Once again, OSA No.227 of 2022 etc cases, came to be filed against the order of the learned Judge passed on 17.08.2022, and on 02.09.2022 the Division Bench allowed the Original Side Appeals by setting aside the order dated 17.08.2022 and the original applications were consequently dismissed and the convening of the General Council meeting was upheld. On 30.09.2022, the first appellant and his group again approached the Supreme Court by filing SLP (c) Nos. 15705-15706 of 2022, wherein an undertaking was given on behalf of the 3rd respondent that the election to the post of general secretary shall not be conducted pending disposal of the SLP. The important turn of events happened at this stage is the subsequent judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 23.02.2023, by which, the appeals filed against the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 02.09.2022, came to be dismissed and the convening of the General Council meeting held on 11.07.2022 was upheld as being valid. The SLPs filed against the order of the Division Bench dated 23.06.2022 were also disposed of, by making the interim order dated 06.07.2022 absolute. Thereafter, the four suits seeking for declaration that the Resolutions passed on 11.07.2022 are illegal and invalid, came to be filed. In these suits, original applications have been filed for the interim reliefs that have been dismissed by the learned Judge by common order dated 28.03.2023, against which, the present Original Side Appeals have been filed. 23. The above narration of the unfolded facts and events and the connected litigation along with the orders passed by this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court would clearly expose that the parties have approached the Courts at every possible instance and the working and functioning of one of the major political parties of Tamil Nadu has been mired in controversy as well as in litigation for a long time. Now, an important fact that emerges from the above narration is that while several events unfolded to the displeasure of the appellants, and they approached the Courts time and again, and after two rounds of litigation, they had not made out a case to prove that injury that is incapable of being repaired or redressed by trial in the suits, has been caused to them at any point of time. 10.4. The Hon’ble High Court further stated that On the issue as to the conduct of the election for the post of general secretary, it must be stated that this issue is also based on the previous premise of the order passed by the Supreme Court holding as valid the meeting . Any injunction with respect to the validity of these Resolutions would mean that a pre-11.07.2022 situation would have to be put in place and this would also mean that till the suit is completed, the party would face a situation of being without leadership as there would be no general secretary which also cannot be permitted. Further, this would mean that the party would have to be run under the Joint leadership of the Co-ordinator and Joint Co-ordinator which was not practically working out, and which led to the change in scenario. That apart, when the meeting dated 11.07.2022 was convened and has now received the stamp of approval of the Apex Court, the Resolutions adopted therein, most importantly relating to electing the General Secretary on the lines of restoring single leadership of the party, as has been the apparent majority wish, cannot be scuttled, before trial. The reasoning of the learned Judge is also on these lines and hence, cannot be held to be arbitrary or unreasonable in view of the fact that all issues connected herewith can be remedied in the suits. Further, the election to the post of General Secretary has already taken place and technically, this relief has become infructuous. More importantly, when the appellants have been expelled and there is no interim injunction against such action, pending the suits, the election to the post of General Secretary, cannot be injuncted at their instance. 11. Hence as per the above narration, it is clear that subsequent events had taken place after the resolution passed on 12.09.2017. The plaintiff who is said to be a member has filed this suit to conduct the elections to the post of General Secretary as per Rule 20(2) of the Bye laws and direct the newly appointed General Secretary to convene a General Council Meeting and thereafter direct the General Secretary to conduct intra party elections as per Rule 30(1) and the elected members of the General Council and the General Secretary convened as per Rule 19(7) shall elect the Presidium Chairman and for a permanent injunction restraining the 2nd and 3rd defendants or the lapsed General Council from appointing any persons to any posts including the post of the Presidium Chairman; The plaintiff who is claimed to be a member of the party is aware of the aforesaid proceedings. He disclosed the entire order in W.P.No.13372 / 2021 in his plaint which discloses that the party in person is having good knowledge about all the litigations that the political party under the caption of double factions has gone through. Mere prayer of conducting the elections as per Rule 20(2) of the Bye laws and direct the newly appointed General Secretary to convene a General Council Meeting and thereafter direct the General Secretary to conduct intra party elections as per Rule 30(1) and the elected members of the General Council and the General Secretary convened as per Rule 19(7) shall elect the Presidium Chairman without the prayer of declaration and without the proper cause of action will not suffice. Pleadings should contain only material facts that are relevant to the case. Immaterial or irrelevant facts should be excluded. On plain reading of plaint in whole, the right or relief pleaded in the plaint is totally immaterial to the facts stated in the plaint. Though the plaint ran in pages both in tamil and english, the pleadings must specifically state the relief claimed. Even in the cause of action, there is no relevancy and the factum laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in T.Arivanandham Vs Sathyapal “The learned Munsif must remember that if on a meaningful – not formal – reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and merit less, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, he should exercise his power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order 10 CPC. An active Judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits. The Trial Courts would insist imperatively on examining the party at the first hearing so that bogus litigation can be shot down at the earliest state. The Penal Code is also resourceful enough to meet such men, (Cr.XI) and must be triggered against them. In this case, the learned Judge to his cost realised what George Bernard Shaw remarked on the 133 assassination of Mahatma Gandhi’ :It is dangerous to be too good” It could thus be seen that this Court has held that reading of the averments made in the plaint should not only be formal but also meaningful. It has been held that if clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, and a meaningful reading thereof would show that the pleadings are manifestly vexatious and merit less , in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, then the Court should exercise its power under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. It has been held that such a suit has to be nipped in the bud at the first hearing itself is squarely applicable to the facts of the case.” An application under Order VII Rule 11 has to be decided by way of a meaningful reading of the plaint. It is their case that the scope of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is wide and therefore the court can look into the subsequent events to give a meaningful reading to the plaint. If on a meaningful reading of the entire plaint, the reliefs sought for cannot be granted today or if the reliefs sought for would be in violation of past judicial orders that have attained finality, then the same is a ground to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. In the result, this petition is hereby allowed. No costs. Dictated to the Steno-typist, directly and computerized by her, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 21st day of August, 2025. XXIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. Both side Witnesses and Exhibits : NIL XXIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. Draft/fair Order I.A.No. 17/2021 in O.S. No. 8122/2021 Dated: 21.08.2025 XXIII Asst. Court